shelf-nu-mcp

shelf_create_tag

Create a new tag for organizing assets in a Shelf workspace by providing a name; optionally target a specific organization ID.

Instructions

Create a new tag.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "shelf_create_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`orgId`	No	Workspace/organization ID. Defaults to SHELF_ORG_ID or your current workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: no mention of whether duplicate tag names are rejected, whether the call is idempotent, what the created tag looks like, or any auth requirement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably over-lean rather than poorly structured, so the sizing itself is not the defect.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what is returned (e.g., the new tag's ID/object) and how orgId scoping affects the result. For a creation tool it leaves the agent without the behavioral and return context needed to call it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50% — orgId is documented in the schema, but the required 'name' parameter carries no description beyond minLength: 1. The description supplies no semantics for either parameter (e.g., uniqueness or naming rules), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb+resource ('Create a new tag'), but it essentially restates the tool name shelf_create_tag and gives no signal to distinguish it from the many other create tools in the sibling set (create_asset, create_kit, create_booking). An agent knows what resource is targeted but not why this creator differs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives — no mention of how tags relate to shelf_list_tags, whether tags are org-scoped, or when creating a tag is appropriate versus attaching existing ones. Nothing about preconditions or exclusions is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server